We examined how performance of two overlapping discrete tasks is organized and controlled. Experiment 1 showed that when stimuli were presented in an unexpected order, expectations rather than actual presentation order determined the order in which the two stimuli were processed. In Experiment 2, when task order was unpredictable, performance was facilitated when task order was repeated on consecutive trials. In Experiment 3, performance of the second but not the first task benefited greatly when task order was held constant as compared to regularly alternated between trials; such effects were especially pronounced at short intertrial intervals. These results suggest that sequential performance of overlapping tasks is scheduled in advance and is regulated by initially allocating the central processing channel to one task and subsequently switching this channel to the other task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportA. (1980). Attention and performance.Cognitive psychology: New directions.ClaxtonG.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2.
AllportA.StylesE. A. (1991). Multiple executive functions, multiple resources? Experiments in shifting attentional control of tasksOxford University Unpublished manuscript.
3.
De JongR. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 965–980.
4.
De JongR.ColesM. G. H.LoganG. D. (in press). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
5.
De JongR.ColesM. G. H.LoganG. D.GrattonG. (1990). In search of the point of no return: The control of response processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 164–182.
6.
De JongR.LiangC.LauberE. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 731–750.
7.
De JongR.SweetJ. B. (1994). Preparatory control of visual perception in overlapping tasks.Perception & Psychophysics55, 142–151.
8.
DriverJ.TipperS. P. (1989). On the nonselectivity of “selective” seeing: Contrasts between interference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15, 304–314.
9.
DuncanJ. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 216–228.
10.
FagotC.PashlerH. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: exploring the central attentional bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Peformance18, 1058–1079.
11.
GottsdankerR. (1979). A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 208–215.
12.
GottsdankerR. (1980). The ubiquitous role of preparation.Tutorials in motor behavior.StelmachG. E.RequinJ.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13.
GreenwaldA. G.ShulmanH. G. (1973). On doing two tasks at once: II. Elimination of the PRP effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology101, 70–76.
14.
JordanM. I.RosenbaumD. A. (1989). Action.Foundations of cognitive science.PosnerM. I.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
KantowitzB. H. (1974). Double stimulation:.Human information processing: Tutorials in cognition.KantowitzB. H.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16.
KarlinL.KestenbaumR. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period.Quarterly Journal of Psychology20, 167–178.
17.
KeeleS. W.CohenA.IvryR. (1990). Motor programs: Concepts and issues.Attention and performance XIII.JeannerodM.KornblumS.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18.
KlappS. T.AndersonW. G.BerrianR. W. (1973). Implicit speech in reading reconsidered.Journal of Experimental Psychology100, 368–374.
19.
KristoffersonA. B. (1967). Attention and psychophysical time.Acta Psychologica27, 93–100.
20.
LoganG. D. (1978). Attention in character classification: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General107, 32–63.
21.
LoganG. D.CowanW. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control.Psychological Review91, 295–327.
22.
McCannR.JohnstonJ. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18, 471–485.
23.
McLeodP.PosnerM. I. (1984). Privileged loops from percept to act.Attention and performance X.BoumaH.BouwhuisE. G.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.55–66.
24.
PashlerH. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance10, 358–377.
25.
PashlerH. (1989). Dissociations and contingencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a twocomponent theory of divided attention in simple tasks.Cognitive Psychology21, 469–514.
26.
PashlerH. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 826–842.
27.
PashlerH. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance17, 1023–1040.
28.
PashlerH. (1994). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology47A, 161–192.
29.
PashlerH.CarrierM.HoffmanJ. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology46A, 51–82.
30.
PashlerH.JohnstonJ. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology41A, 19–45.
31.
SmithM. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period.Psychological Bulletin67, 202–213.
32.
SternbergS.KnollR. L. (1973). The perception of temporal order: Fundamental issues and a general model.Attention and performance IV.KornblumS.New York: Academic Press.
33.
SternbergS.KnollR. L.GatesB. A. (1971). Prior entry reexamined: Effects of attentional bias on order perceptionSt. Louis, Missouri. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
34.
SternbergS.MonsellS.KnollR. L.WrightC. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting.Information processing in motor control and learning.StelmachG. E.New York: Academic Press.
35.
WelfordA. T. (1980). The single-channel hypothesis.Reaction time.WelfordA. T.New York: Academic Press.
36.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention, dual-task performance, and workload assessment.Varieties of attention.ParasuramanR.DaviesR.New York: Academic Press.
